Marine Life Use in the Aquarium Hobby

Bob Fenner

The public's exposure to the living
world

The ornamental aquatic industry relies on collection by
intrepid divers for the vast majority of it's livestock; fishes,
corals, crabs, snails, algae, "live-rock" and more are all
gathered from the wild. Less than one percent of the total number of
marine organisms so utilized are "tank-raised" (see table)
mainly a handful of species of clown-anemone fishes, neon
"cleaner" gobies, and a hodge-podge of non-fishes.

Cultured Organisms Regularly Offered in The Aquatic Pet
Trade

Examples of Fishes/Non-Fishes

Tomato Clownfish, Amphiprion
frenatus

Giant Clams,Tridacna crocea.

Clarkii Clowns, Amphiprion
clarkii

Pacific Abalones, Haliotis spp.

Percula Clowns, A. ocellaris

"Cultured Live Rock"

Algae, Gracilaria, Ulva

Neon Gobies,Gobiosoma oceanops

Other species have been bred and reared in captivity;
none have met with commercial success.

Impact:

Where do they all come from...? (For various reasons;
lack of licensing, other documentation for foreign countries,
diffuseness, unsophistication of the pet industry, and commercial
secrecy, real "hard" numbers are unavailable re the origins
and destination of wild-caught marine pet-"fish". Through
many years "in the trade" in the U.S. and abroad, personal
communications, and "reading between the lines" my conjecture
is that) Most marine livestock originates in two places, the Philippine
Islands (@65%) and Indonesia (@20%), with most of the rest hailing from
Florida/Caribbean, Hawaii and Australia, and to a much lesser extent
Guam, Tonga, Marshall Islands, Costa Rica and others. Note this list is
for the mid-1990's and is for the countries/areas of origination,
not intermediaries (e.g. transhippers).

And where do they all go? About half of these organisms
are destined for the United States pet trade, with more than half of
the rest going to wholesalers in Western Europe and Japan.

(It is my estimate that even given sustainable
(hand-netting with or without pokers, barrier nets, traps...)
collection practices, less than half of collected organisms live to be
shipped from their mother-lands. Of those still living, an average
fifth are lost in transit to the consignee, another fifth are lost
within forty-eight hours of arrival, with a further two-fifth's
dying within a month. Yes, this leaves some ten percent of what was
originally caught or approximately a fifth of those shipped. Virtually
none (<1%) live more than a year in captivity.

Are these losses excessive? Economically no. The wet-pet
livestock industry in the U.S. last year generated retail sales of
about six hundred million dollars, of which seventeen percent were
marine (International Marine Life Alliance Canada News Release). Most
retailers hope to break even on sales of marine-life itself; the
livestock are necessary though to drive purchases of lucrative
dry-goods.

The moral question of whether the capture and keeping of
marines is ethical is one we must ask ourselves or stand-by and let
governments decide for us.

What is the impact on wild stocks and the environments
they inhabit from such collecting? Does the gathering of marine fishes,
invertebrates, rock and algae for ornamental purposes have decided
long-term deleterious effects? Do the methods used and extent of
harvesting call for licensing or outright bans?

Let us try to understand this source of mortality in the
context of natural and human involvement.

Several hundred thousand individual marine organisms and
a few hundred tons of "live rock" are extracted from the
oceans each year for the pet trade. Most are gathered via sustainable
methods utilizing various types of nets and traps. Though there are
allegations of other nefarious techniques, little or no substantial
evidence exists as to their extensive use. Dynamite and other
explosives use are relegated to destructive food-fishing. Most types of
poisoning as well, except for one celebrated sore eye for the trade,
the use of cyanide. Still used in the Philippine Islands and cropping
up in other places and times in the Indo-Pacific it's use is being
curtailed and deserves it's own article.

I will argue that the manner that most marine
fishes are collected and their numbers are of
small consequence to the reefs and other habitats. The weight of my
opinion rests with the high recruitment and replacement potential for
these organisms. As habitat-centric terrestrials our frame of reference
are frequently trees, birds and mammals. Primary and subsequent
production are far more robust in coastal marine environs. As an
example, removing ninety percent of the biomass in a forest and we
appreciate a loss of abundance and diversity measured in years. Aquatic
environments react and replenish much more quickly, being difficult to
discern disruption in only a few months.

Clumsy, slow humans probably represent an insignificant
percentage of mortality for these stocks compared with
"natural" sources such as currents, storms, predation,
starvation, competition for habitat...

I would be remiss for not mentioning that there are
organisms that should spared removal or at least be limited in their
taking. Such are fishes that fare poorly in captivity; many
coral-eating butterflyfishes, ribbon moray eels, Moorish idols; and
many of the sedentary invertebrates; stony corals, large anemones,
giant clams, sponges and others that have long generation times, slow
growth rates and replacement potential and small chance of life in
captivity. To the hobby and industries' credit, many authors
attempt to identify and urge consumers to shy away from these touchy
species.

Other Sources of Mortality:

In any fair discussion of a subject there is a need to
identify other contributing influences. In this case, alternate uses
and causes of loss of life.

Wouldn't it be great to elucidate all the inputs and
outputs of "natural" causes in a model of recruitment and
loss in these habitats? Let's focus on those of solely human
origin:

Development: has proven historically to be a huge
negative influence. Unconscientious grading and drainage alone have
smothered vast coastal marine areas, ostensibly wiping out all
macro-life diversity for long periods of time.

Food-Gathering: with modern
gear and techniques have had

documented disastrous results; e.g. the North Pacific
sardine fishery, and diminishing mesh size on gill nets in Africa's
great lakes. Modern technology must be matched with prudence to obtain
and maintain optimum sustainable yields.

Military: At present humans collectively expend about a quarter of
their countries Gross Domestic Products on "defense". The
United States stated military budget is some two hundred eighty nine
(289) billion dollars in 1993 (Business Week Feb. 14, 1994, p.8), more
than the next ten countries outlays combined. Much of the consequent
materials, waste oil, diesel, nuclear, aircraft fuel, CFC's... ends
up in marine environments. Why are we allocating so much resource to
killing each other and the planet?

Tourism: Eco- or otherwise plays havoc with the
same niches; amateur divers, fishers, their boats' anchors, fuel
and noise, the "business of life" which is human consumption,
all contribute to wear and tear of natural resources.

These sources of mortality are exceedingly more
detrimental and indiscriminate than collecting "pet-fish". So
all this being said and written; even though the collection, transport
and keeping of captive marine organisms apparently accounts for
comparatively minuscule loss of life and habitat damage, why the
current interest in regulating such trade? Maybe it's a possible
new source of "revenue enhancement" (i.e. tax), perhaps a
bureaucratic job scramble, maybe a smoke-screen? How are you going to
generate funds from individuals and groups without such sensationalism?
How much money are you going to make attacking the tourist industries
or government sources of waste and inefficiency? But back to the
central issue, is marine pet-fishing worth the cost to the
environment?

Final Opinion:

Oh Dear Reader, I must side with the not-so-vocal
majority in stating that I do think and feel the price is indeed small
compared with the very real tangible benefits: Hard currency income for
native peoples, the science and art that come from trying to keep a
slice of the ocean. The algebraic growth in interest and awareness,
appreciation for the grandeur which is the living world, &
consequent protective conscience such husbandry has engendered. Yes,
it's worth it.